Disposed

N.Shamsul HUDA v. Thahsildar

Kerala HC13 Dec 2013WP(C)/26354/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue recovery proceedings based on an alleged incomplete loan agreement and a limitation objection. The High Court held that the dispute requires adjudication on evidence in a civil suit and was not suitable for a writ remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Revenue recovery proceedings put on hold for one month to enable the petitioner to file a civil suit. Section 80 notice complied with.

N.Shamsul HUDA Vs Thahsildar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 26354 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.SHAMSUL HUDA

¶8

S/O NOOR MUHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 22/382-B BYE-PASS JUNCTION, THIRUVANNUR P.O. CALICUT, PIN - 673 029

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE THAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION P.O. , KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 020

¶12

2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, RASMECC, KALLAI, KALLAI P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 003

¶13

3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANNUR BRANCH, PIN - 673 029

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAFEEK V.K. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DCS

¶17

WP(C).No. 26354 of 2013 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶20

EXHIBIT. P1	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE FORMAT OF THE AGREEMENT CONTAINING THE SIGNATURES OF THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS HIS SON FEBEL H, BEARING UNFILLED/BLANK LINES.
EXHIBIT. P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.05.2011
EXHIBIT. P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 16.01.2012
EXHIBIT. P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT. P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT. P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT. P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 06.07.2011.
EXHIBIT. P8	TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 23.06.2003, 23.07.2003, 25.08.2003, 25.09.2003, 23.10.2003, 28.11.2003 AND 30.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
EXHIBIT. P8(a)	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.06.2004, ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
EXHIBIT. P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASS BOOK EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE MADE BY THE PETITIONER

¶21

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE :

¶22

ANNEXURE - I COPY OF SANCTION LETTER DATED 24.04.2003 ANNEXURE - II APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR LOAN

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶27

-------------------------------

¶28

W.P.(C) No.26354 of 2013

¶29

---------------------------------------

¶30

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2013

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner challenges the revenue recovery proceedings evidenced by Ext.P6 demand notice at the instance of the second respondent bank on the following two grounds:-

¶33

i) There is no legally enforceable debt in as much as Ext. P1 loan agreement contains many blank spaces and is incomplete.

¶34

ii) The revenue recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of the requisition made by the bank in the year 2011 is barred by limitation since the last payment by the petitioner was in the year 2004.

¶35

The bank on the other hand contends that the receipt of the loan from the second respondent bank is not disputed by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the amount was directly disbursed to the institution where the petitioner studied to become a Dental Surgeon. The bank

¶36

W.P.(C) No.26354 of 2013 2

¶37

further asserts that the period of repayment ends only in the year 2011 during which period the requisition was also made. The stand of the bank is that it can always fall back on the original cause of action and that the bar of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.

¶38

I heard the counsel for the petitioner, the senior counsel on behalf of the bank and also the Government Pleader.

¶39

The matter can be given a quietus by relegating the petitioner a civil suit since the parties are at variance on many facts to be established by evidence. Whether the loan was advanced and that the recovery proceedings initiated are in time is a matter to be adjudged on the quality of evidence let in. It will be inequitable for this Court to determine all these issues in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

Ext. P4 representation sent by the petitioner to the first respondent Tahsildar satisfies the notice required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore a fresh notice is dispensed with. It is open to the petitioner to file a suit challenging the revenue recovery proceedings and seek injunctive reliefs if there are good grounds. The revenue

¶41

W.P.(C) No.26354 of 2013 3

¶42

recovery proceedings evidenced by Exts. P3 and P6 notices are put on hold for a period of one month to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶46

DCS

N.Shamsul HUDA v. Thahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Shamsul HUDA v. Thahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs K.A. Thomas

Rema Raveendran Vs the Special Deputy Collector (La), S.L.A.O.

Bose Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Thulasidharan Pillai Vs Mohankumar

The Cannanore District Co-Operative Rubber & Agricultural Marketing Society LTD.NO.C-303 Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs Union of India